📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Yuba County Grand Jury • 1992-1993

County Budget Procedures

Published: August 31, 2011 198 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F8, F10, F11, F12, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18, F19, F20, F21, F22, F23, F24, F25, F26, F27, F28, F29, F30, F31, F32, F33, F34, F35, F36, F37, F38, F39

Findings 10 findings

F1 Page 67
The 1992-93 proposed budget did not include the Grand Jury estimated expenditures in tabular format as submitted by the court to the CA, therefor the proposed budget did not readily provide the Board with easily identifiable differences between the CA's
F2 Page 67
The approval of Grand Jury expenditures by the Courts and notice to the Board pursuant to Penal Code Section 914.5, is not being forwarded to the Board by the CA. The Board by ordinance (Govt, Code Section 68091 and Penal Code Section 890) may stipulate higher fees and mileage rates for grand jurors. CONCLUSIONS: The Courts have ruled that the legislature had in contemplation a system which would provide for budgeting all the ordinary expenses of the county, and that all of the ordinary and usually anticipated expenses of each office of the county should be estimated and set forth in the budget, 33 1992-93 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report It is the opinion of the Grand Jury that when the estimated ordinary expenses of the Grand Jury, or any budget unit for that matter, are not included in the budget, the budget is not a true presentation to the people of the expenses and financing requirements of the County. The Grand Jury can only conclude that the CA was not aware of the proper statutes which address the fees and mileage rates to be paid grand jurors and which require that all estimated expenditures submitted by budget units be included in the proposed budget for the Board's consideration. Additionally, though the CA was carrying out the directions of the Board in preparing the proposed budget, i.e., that the proposed budget reflect a present level of service, be had no statutory authority to return the estimated expenditures which had tacit approval of the Court, and which was the Court's advance notice to the Board as required by Penal Code Section 914.5. The Grand Jury is aware that the legislature has given the Bourd broad powers in establishing budgets. The Grand Jury is also aware that the legislature has given the Courts and only the Courts the discretionary power to approve or disapprove Grand Jury expenditures. Grand juries would prefer to start the year with an adequate budget to fund the ordinary expenses for the year and not have to avail itself of Penal Code Section 914.5, by which additional funds can be requested.
F3 Page 68
That the Board adopt an ordinance, establishing Grand Jury fees and mileage rates, similar to the ordinance now in effect for Trial Jurors, to avoid having to debate the subject with every Grand Jury. Penal Code Section 916, provides in part: "....all problems identified in a final report are accompanied by suggested means for their resolution, including financial, when applicable." The Grand Jury suggests, should the Board not agree with the Grand Jury interpretations of the code sections referenced and/or the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations, that the Board request Attorney General opinions on any code sections in question. COMMENTS REQUIRED ON FINDINGS: Yuba County Board of Supervisors: Findings 1, 2, & 3. agitan kultura sebetah dari 12 angalah salah 1920 dan beraha kalaman gari 1900 dan beraha 1900 agitar berahaMangketang dari beraha sebenah kalaman dan agitan beraha kalaman dari beraha sebenah sebesah sebesah sebesah s 34 ٥, 1992-93 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report COMMENTS REQUIRED ON RECOMMENDATIONS: Yuba County Board of Supervisors: Recommendations 1, 2, & 3.
F4 Page 79
There is insufficient funding currently allocated for the thirty-three positions authorized to staff the new jail facility.
F5 Page 100
On election day a voter walked into the Election Official's office asked for and was given an absence ballot, went out to his car, marked and returned the ballot to the clerk. See Section 1014. ateria protesti, esperial traversi de la comunicación de la comunicación de la comunicación de la comunicación
F6 Page 100
Some persons who returned voted ballots to the elections office were not asked to show identification to prove they were the person who had voted the ballot or authorized to return the ballot by the person who had voted the ballot. See Section 1013. may be ready and a superior of the contract of the contract of CONCLUSIONS: Language Lagrange and a language of the language conclusions and the language conclusions. ayay ya baga gibi andaribi milanbar maga filipida sa asa atau bata bibinta bibinta sa maga mara a The Grand Jury members did not observe any instance where the confidentiality of any absent voter ballot was compromised. However, there was ample opportunity for any person having access to the office where ballots were stored, to learn how any of those ballots were voted and by whom. Members of the Grand Jury are confident that the type of envelopes presently used are adequate. In the interest of cost effectiveness, the procedures for processing absent voter ballots can be revised to ensure the confidentiality of the voted ballots. 57 ... 1992-93 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report . . . . . . .
F7 Page 113
Under recent legislation, local bodies may have their actions taken in violation of the 1; open meeting laws declared null and void by a court. Suits may be initiated by interested : : persons within limited time frames...." The publication on ., states in part: " .... Open meeting laws represent the Legislature's determination of how the balance should be struck between public access to the activities of a public body on the one hand and the need for secret candor, debate, and information gathering on the other. As the rest of this pamphlet will indicate, the balance has been struck in Javor of public access.... The purpose of the open meeting laws,... is to require that all aspects of the decision-making process by ... local legislative bodies be conducted in public. These laws have been interpreted to awan that all of the deliberative processes by multi-member bodies, including discussion, debate and the acquisition of information, be open and available for public scrutiny. (Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Bd. of Suprs. (1968) 263 Cal, App. 2d41; 42 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 61, 63 (1963); 32 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 240 (1958).) These laws only apply to multi-member bodies such as councils, boards, commissions, etc., since, unlike individual decision makers, such bodies are supposed to arrive at collaborative decisions through public discussion and debate...." (Emphasis added) 66 1992-93 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report Current practice is for governing bodies (Boards-Councils) and elected officials to refer the Grand Jury Final Report to staff or appointed officials for report back. The staff or appointed officials use up the 60 or 90 day time period creating a deadline constraint. The governing bodies, because of a pinch for time, adopt the staff report as their own comments and approve them as a consent agenda item, and transmit the report to the Presiding Judge. The Court makes no comment. The responses are filed as received. The public knows little if anything of the substance or dynamics of the final report or the responses. The Presiding Judge of the Yuba County Superior Court, effective September 1, 1989, as provided by Govt. Code Section 69898, separated the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court from the office of the County Clerk. By its action the Yuba County Superior Court assigned the responsibility to keep on file Grand Jury reports and responses to the Superior Court Clerk and not to the "county clerk" referred to in Penal Code Section 933.(c). and the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the stre FINDINGS: All findings have been validated and substantiated by current documentation, and by interviews or observations conducted by no less than two members of the Grand Jury as required by Ponal Code Section 916.
F9
Child Protective Services (CPS) Operation of the above programs normally requires 228 management and clerical positions. Due to current budget constraints the county has eliminated more than 30 positions while the case load continues to grow at a rate of 2 to 3% per year. The total cost of personnel is approximately 8 million annually, therefore, over 30 million is distributed in cash or services to eligible Yuba County residents. In an effort to reduce costs Yuba County initiated a four-day work week (four 10-hour days), which has resulted in a 25% increase to the daily case load. The current caseload is 135 cases per worker for AFDC and Food Stamp, and 280 cases per worker for Medi-cal. The 17 current GR cases must requalify monthly and are counted for under the AFDC caseload. Eligibility for AFDC does not require a permanent address. The case workers, eligibility workers and assistants are now helping one another as needed in order to provide the required services. Current budget reductions have resulted in the following: A. In home services have been reduced by 12%. AFDC funds have been reduced by approximately 10%. B, The Social Services Department averages approximately 13 to 14% employee attrition rate which is reflective of the high job stresses and mobility of the area residents. Historically, employee morale has been a problem which has been addressed through various avenues. The department at large has an average attrition rate of approximately 30 employees per year. Surveys from outside agencies (procedures section item 3.P and 3.S), formation of the House Committee (procedure section item 2), expanded employee training and various types of personnel management procedures have all contributed to minimizing the issue of employee morale while improving the overall efficiency of the department. Compliance with all of the federal, state, and county regulations requires constant monitoring and updating as changes occur. The Yuba County Social Services Department has done an exemplary job in keeping abreast of all changes and maintaining ongoing compliance as shown by the latest State audit in which Yuba Co. and only one other county passed, out of the thirteen counties that were audited. All regulatory information is recorded, existing information updated, and issued to relevant personnel for follow up. Reports and audits from a variety of outside agencies have confirmed the high standards maintained by this department. The latest audit report from the State Department of Social Services Civil Rights revealed two infractions: (1) There is a shortage of bi-lingual staff available to serve the public and there was a lack of forms and literature available in the required languages, and (2) the main building complex did not have an external sign identifying it to be the Offices of the Public Welfare Department, Employee and clients safety is also considered a priority item by the department staff. A minimum of two fire alarm drills are conducted annually and all employees are encouraged to report any safety related issues as soon as they are noticed. 'The last Fire Marshall's inspection was . completed in February of 1992; another inspection has been requested and is being scheduled by the Fire Marshall. During one of the State audits, it was noted that there was no fire alarm in place for 86 7 1992-93 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report the hearing impaired. A strobe light type of alarm was immediately ordered but as yet it has not been installed. An examination of the General Relief Program, and the regulations which govern it, revealed that it was established via County Resolution 1976-131 in 1976 and that all rules and regulations which govern its operation, eligibility requirements, fee schedule, etc. are contained therein. In 1983 the County passed a new Resolution (1983-18) which updated all elements of the program and established new eligibility criteria. Since that time several amendments have been adopted; however, they are all referenced to the original 1976 Resolution (1976-131) and are therefore non-applicable to the current program. The County administration acknowledged the error and explained that there was no procedure to identify resolutions that had been superseded. The Grand Jury was assured in February that the County administration would correct the oversight but as yet the Grand Jury has not been informed about any action on this issue. Analysis of Program Operations . . . AFOC EAROR RATE
F13 Page 148
There is no external sign marking the building as the offices of the Public Welfare Department, which is a violation of DHHS Code Part 5 Section 4563.
F40
$ 15.00/Hrg $ 15.00/lnv* $ 15.00/Mtg* $ 15.00/Mtg Round Trip NEVADA 0.28/Mi TRAINING Yes ≙ ಷ Exhibit A 딿 FEES ÇΑ $ 10.00/Hrg $ 10,00/Jav $ 10,00/Mig $ 10.00/Mtg One Way SUTTER 0.23/Mi ĕ g 4 49 $ 10,00/Hrg $ 10,00/Inv $ 10.00/Mtg $ 10.00/Mtg One Way OYOYO 0.21/Mi Ύes ಹ 2 $ 13.75/Hrg $ 13.75/Inv $ 13.75/Mtg $ 13.75/Mtg AVERAGE for the new Grand Jury. per month. will allow. What budget $ 0.28/Mi $ 10.00/H/g AUJ00'0 $ $ 0.00/Mtg $ 10.00/Mtg One Way Yes*** ** YBUY ٠: Exhibit B BENCH-MARK COUNTIES BUDGET COMPARISON ACTUAL APPROVED POPULA- PER PER COUNTY EXPENDITURES BUDGETS TION CAPITA JUROR 1990-91 1990-91 1991-92 1991-92 ÷ 182,085 $ 0.26 BUTTE $ 36,575 $ 46,483 $2,446 NEVADA $ 62,460 82,950 $0.62 $ 51,765 $2,724 $ 0.36 SUTTER $ 24,858 $ 23,000 64.666 $1,211 : : YOLO $ 13,367 $ 0.10 $ 703 $ 13,350 139,176

Recommendations 8